Motion for Summary Judgment in California State Grange, a California Nonprofit Corporation vs Chico Community Guilds, an Entity of Unknown Form| Trellis.Law

On January 16, 2020 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between California State Grange, A California Nonprofit Corporation, and Chico Community Guilds, An Entity Of Unknown Form, for (26) Unlimited Other Real Property in the District Court of Butte County.

Preview
1 FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
ROBERT A. CUTBIRTH (131279)
2 rcutbirth@fmglaw.com
MICHELE C. KIRRANE (215448)
3 mkirrane@fmglaw.com 2/17/2021
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3580
4 San Francisco, California 94104-6702
(415) 627-9000; FAX: (213) 615-7100
5
FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
6 GREGORY T. FAYARD (212930)
gfayard@fmglaw.com
7 ADAM G. KHAN (296617)
akhan@fmglaw.com
8 1013 Galleria Boulevard, Suite 250
Roseville, California 95678-1363
9 (916) 472-3300; FAX (916) 462-9226

10 Attorneys for Defendant
CHICO COMMUNITY GUILDS
11

13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
COUNTY OF BUTTE – UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
15

16
CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, a California Case No. 20CV00152
17 nonprofit corporation,
Assigned for all purposes to:
18 Plaintiff, Honorable Stephen E. Benson
v.
19 DEFENDANT CHICO COMMUNITY
CHICO COMMUNITY GUILDS, an entity of GUILDS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
20 unknown form, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
21 Defendants. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
22 ADJUDICATION

23 Date: May 5, 2021
Time: 9:00 a.m.
24 Dept.: 6

25 Complaint Filed: January 16, 2020
Trial Date: None set
26
Defendant Chico Community Guilds (“CCG”) submits the following Separate Statement of
27
Freeman Mathis
& Gary, LLP
Undisputed Material Facts and references to evidence in support of its Motion for Summary
28
Attorneys at Law

DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
0.0
1 Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication as to all of Plaintiff California State Grange’s

2 (Plaintiff) causes of action. This Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts is filed pursuant

3 to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 437c(b)(1), and in compliance with California Rules of

4 Court, Rules 3.1350(c)(2) and 3.1350(h).

5
ISSUE 1: THE ADVERSE POSSESSION DOCTRINE REQUIRES SUMMARY
6 JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ON PLAINTIFF’S REAL PROPERTY CAUSES
OF ACTION (All Causes of Action Except Conversion and Claim and Delivery).
7

8 ISSUE 2: PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION ARE BARRED DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S
NEAR SEVEN-YEAR DELAY IN FILING SUIT (All Causes of Action).
9

10 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
11 MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
EVIDENCE:
12 1. On September 17, 2012, National Grange
Master, Ed Luttrell suspended the Charter
13 of the California State Grange and
cancelled its annual meeting.
14
Evidence: Declaration of Gregory T.
15 Fayard (“Fayard Decl.”), Ex. H Booth
Depo II, Ex. 7.
16
2. On October 19, 2012, National Grange
17 Master Ed Luttrell demanded that
subordinate California granges pay dues
18 directly to the National Grange while the
California State Grange charter was in
19
suspension in order to remain in good
20 standing.
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
21
Depo. I, Ex. 11.
22 3. The unincorporated Chico Grange No.
486 (“UCG”) continued to be associated
23 with the California State Grange, run by
Mr. McFarland following the revocation
24 of the state grange charter, and voted at
the 2013 annual meeting to amend the
25 bylaws stating that the California State
Grange is no longer affiliated with the
26 National Grange.
27 Evidence: Declaration of Peter Allison
Freeman Mathis
& Gary, LLP
(“Allison Decl.”), ¶¶ 14-17.
28
Attorneys at Law

-2-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 4. UCG continued to pay dues to the
California State Grange run by Mr.
4 McFarland following the revocation of
the state grange charter.
5
Evidence: Allison Decl., ¶¶ 14, 16.
6 5. UCG had not paid dues to the National
Grange during the period of charter
7 revocation and therefore was not in good
standing in 2014.
8
Evidence: Allison Decl., ¶ 17.
9 6. UCG was not eligible to reorganize under
the California State Grange in 2014
10 because it had not paid dues to the
Grange organization since September
11 2012.
12 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. A, Plaintiff’s
Response to Request for Admission, Set
13 One, No. 40.
Allison Decl., ¶ 17.
14
7. If a subordinate grange is more than two
15 quarters behind in the payment of dues,
that is grounds for immediate revocation
16 of the charter.
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
17
Depo. I, 128:7-13.
18 Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber Depo. I,
110:21-111:6.
19
8. UCG had not paid dues to the National
20 Grange during the period of charter
revocation and therefore was not in good
21 standing in 2014.
22 Evidence: Allison Decl., ¶ 17.
Fayard Decl., Ex. A, Response to Request
23 for Admissions, Set One, No. 40.
24 9. On January 12, 2020, the state grange for
California through the 2014 Corporation
25 claimed to revoke the charter of UCG for,
among other things, failure to pay dues
26 since September 2012.
27 Evidence: Allison Decl., Ex. C.
Freeman Mathis
& Gary, LLP 10. The National Grange President testified
28
Attorneys at Law
they waited from September 2012, when
-3-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 UCG stopped paying dues, until 2019 to
bring litigation against subordinate
4 granges because “[t]here was a lot of
litigation going on. It was a lot of
5 financial commitment. We were only able
to do a certain amount of litigation at any
6 one time, and so some things had to be
put off and we wanted to finish the cases
7 with the State Grange and its property
before we moved on to Subordinate
8 Granges that were not complying with the
bylaws.”
9 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber
Depo. I, 10:8-21; 225:2-18.
10
11. At all times since 1953, CG Inc./Chico
11 Community Guilds, Inc. (“CCG”) has
been the legal owner, has continuously
12 occupied, and has been in physical
possession of the Guild Hall property.
13 CG Inc./CCG’s occupation has been
without the California State Grange’s
14 express consent pursuant to any lease or
license.
15 Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 24.
16 12. At all times since 1953, CG Inc./CCG
paid the property taxes, liability
17 insurance, maintenance, repairs, utilities,
and upkeep for the Guild Hall property
18 with its own funds.
19 Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 25.
13. After the National Grange amended its
20 Complaint against the CSG in 2015, CCG
had no knowledge or expectation that the
21 Grange organization would seek to take
its property at any time prior to January
22 2020, and would not have undertaken
such costs, and suffered such personal
23 financial detriment, if a timely action
would have been brought that would have
24 resolved these claimed (but disputed)
rights at an earlier and more appropriate
25 time.
26 Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 26.
14. Through the name change of Chico
27 Grange No. 486, Inc. (“CG Inc.”) to
Freeman Mathis
& Gary, LLP Chico Community Guilds, Inc. the same
28
Attorneys at Law
corporate entity designation has existed.
-4-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 29.
4 15. At no time has any entity other than CG
Inc./CCG been the legal and equitable
5 owner of the property.
Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 30.
6
16. The purchase of CG Inc./CCG’s personal
7 property and its financial accounts are
solely from its member’s funds. They
8 were never titled in the name of another
party nor ever pledged to any other party.
9 Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 28.
10 17. After September 2012, UCG was no
longer affiliated with the Grange
11 Organization, and paid no dues, attended
no convention, and took no other action
12 indicative of a member of the National
Grange.
13 Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 31.
14 18. Plaintiff filed its verified complaint on
January 16, 2020.
15
Evidence: Fayard Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. G.
16
ISSUE 3: NO FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS FORFEITURE ACTION
17 EXISTS; IMPOSING FORFEITURE WOULD BE CONTRARY TO
CALIFORNIA LAW (All Causes of Action).
18

19 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
20 EVIDENCE:

21 On September 13, 1937, UCG formed
19.
Chico Grange No. 486, a California
22 Corporation (CG Inc.) by filing articles
of incorporation with the California
23 Secretary of State.
24 Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 6, 7, Fayard
Decl., Ex. K, September 13, 1937
25 Articles of Incorporation.
26 In 1953, CG Inc. (not UCG) purchased
20.
the Guild Hall with its own funds.
27
Freeman Mathis Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 5.
& Gary, LLP
28
Attorneys at Law

-5-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 Since 1953, CG Inc./CCG has solely and
21.
separately owned, maintained, repaired,
4 paid taxes on, and controlled the Guild
Hall, the personal property therein, and
5
its bank account.
6 Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 24, 25, 28;
Fayard Decl., Ex. H Booth Depo. II,
7
158:11-21.
8 The September 13, 1937 CG Inc. Articles
22.
of Incorporation (entity number
9
C0172824) do not mention the California
10 State Grange or National Grange of the
Order of Patrons of Husbandry.
11 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. K,
12 September 13, 1937 Articles of
Incorporation.
13 The 1937 CG Inc. Articles of
23.
14 Incorporation did not require the
corporation’s constitution and bylaws to
15 be in conformity with the rules of the
California State Grange.
16
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. K
17 September 13, 1937 Articles of
Incorporation.
18
When UCG received its charter in 1932,
24.
19 no Grange rules spoke to the disposition
of property upon charter revocation.
20
Evidence: Fayard Dec., Ex. J, Huber
21 Depo. II 122:14-123:15.

22 In 1933, section 14 of the Digest of Laws
25.
stated, “A subordinate Grange owning
23 property of value cannot legally
surrender its Charter until its financial
24 business has been closed and the
property rights of members secured.”
25 Under the Digest of Laws between 1933
26 and 1954, subordinate grange property
would become the property of the state
27 grange only if two conditions were
Freeman Mathis
& Gary, LLP
satisfied: (1) the grange ceases to
28
Attorneys at Law
function and (2) the grange fails to make
-6-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 disposition of its property.
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C Huber
4 Depo. I, 228:13-25, 229:17-231:7, Huber
Depo. Ex. 57 (Ch. IX, §§ 14, 14(b)),
5
Huber Depo. Ex. 58 (Ch. IX, § 14(b).
6 Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth Depo. I
270:23-272:3, Booth Depo. Ex. 38 (Ch.
7
IX, § 14(b)).
8 Chapter IX, Section 14(b) of the Digest
26.
of Laws between 1933 and 1953
9
provides:
10 “Whenever a Grange has ceased to
function as such and has failed to make
11 disposition of its property, such property
12 then shall become the property of the
State Grange, subject, however, to any
13 valid claims against such property or
liens thereon; the State Grange assuming
14 no liability for such claims or liens. The
State Master with the advice and consent
15
of the Executive Committee of the State
16 Grange may dispose of such property,
except as provided for in Section 16,
17 Chapter 9 of the National Grange Digest,
and hold the proceeds of the same in the
18 State Grange Treasury in Trust, pending
the reorganization of the subordinate
19
Grange; interest accruing, becoming the
20 property of the State Grange.”
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber
21
Depo. I, Ex. 57 (Ch. IX, § 14(b)), Ex. 58
22 (Ch. IX, § 14(b))
Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth Depo. I, Ex.
23 38 (Ch. IX, § 14(b)).
24 27. In 1987, the Digest of Laws first
provided that upon revocation of a
25 subordinate grange charter, the state
26 grange would acquire the property of the
subordinate grange, and the wording of
27 section 4.12.1 in the 1987 Digest of
Freeman Mathis
& Gary, LLP
Laws is exactly the same as that section
28
Attorneys at Law
in the 2017 Digest of Laws.
-7-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C., Huber
Depo. I, 25:6-14; 41: 9- 42:10.
4
28. Changes are made to the Digest of Laws
5 by a vote of the state delegates to the
National Convention.
6
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C., Huber
7 Depo. I, 37:6-14.

8 Subordinate granges did not
29. affirmatively approve or vote on changes
9 made to the language of the 1987 Digest
of Laws regarding subordinate grange
10 property and are informed of changes
only after they are made.
11 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber
Depo. I 37:6-9; 38:12-24.
12
Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth Depo. I,
13 286:12-287:6; 288:2-23; 295:12-17.
The California State Grange established
14 30. a corporation in 1946, with entity
number C0210454, to conduct the
15 business of the state grange, and which is
known as the “1946 Corporation.”
16
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
17 Depo. I, 29:7-30:5, Ex. 42.
18 The express purpose of the 1946
31.
Corporation is to “incorporate and take
19 over the existing unincorporated
association known as ‘California State
20 Grange.’”
21 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, Ex. 42, Article 2(a).
22
The Plaintiff in this action called
32.
23 “California State Grange” is the 1946
Corporation.
24
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. E.,
25 California State Grange Response to
Form Interrogatories, Set One, 3.1(a).
26
33. The National Grange has not issued a
27 charter to the 1946 Corporation, which is
Freeman Mathis
& Gary, LLP the Plaintiff in this action called
28
Attorneys at Law
“California State Grange.”
-8-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, 308:17-24.
4
Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber Depo. I,
5 78:11-23.

6 Fayard Decl., Ex. E., California State
Grange Response to Form
7 Interrogatories, Set One, 3.1(a).

8 34. The California State Grange, as a
chartered organization, holds three
9 corporations to conduct business.
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
10 Depo. I, 306:21-307:20.
11 35. A charter gives a state grange authority
to enforce Grange rules.
12 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, 59:19-22.
13
Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber Depo. I,
14 45:6-9; 48:5-49:10; 50:7-12; 62:4-7.
15 36. Without a charter, an organization
cannot operate with authority from the
16 Grange organization, conduct Grange
business or enforce Grange rules.
17 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, 59:19-22.
18
Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber Depo. I,
19 45:6-9; 48:5-49:10; 50-7-12; 62:4-7.
20 37. Even if an organization calls itself
“California State Grange,” it cannot
21 conduct Grange business or enforce
Grange rules without a charter.
22 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber
23 Depo. I, 48:5-49:10; 50:7-12; 162:23-
163:3.
24 38. Bob McFarland was the former
Master/President of the California State
25 Grange.
26 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, 120:24-121:15.
27
Freeman Mathis 39. Bob McFarland was the President of the
& Gary, LLP
28
Attorneys at Law 1946 Corporation.

-9-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo I, 120:24-121:15.
4
40. The California State Grange, under Mr.
5 McFarland, had a dispute with the
National Grange regarding lobbying
6 efforts advocating labeling of baby food
for genetically modified ingredients.
7 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. D. Saxton
Depo.,70:7-71:12; 72:2-14.
8
41. The California State Grange was in a
9 battle with the National Grange, and Bob
McFarland was suspended from his
10 office as Master of the California State
Grange in 2011 by the National Grange
11 Master Ed Luttrell, while charges against
him were adjudicated.
12 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, 120:24-121:15.
13
Fayard Decl., Ex. D, Saxton Depo., 60:4-
14 61:21.
42. On September 12, 2017, several
15 members of the California State Grange
brought formal charges against the
16 National Grange Master, Ed Luttrell, for,
among other things, abuse of authority,
17 and requested he be suspended while the
charges are adjudicated.
18
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber
19 Depo., 140:17-21; 142:12-17; 143:22-
144:14, Huber Depo Ex. 12.
20 Fayard Decl., Ex. D, Saxton Depo., 52:7-
21 15; 53:5-54:11.
43. On September 17, 2012, National
22 Grange Master, Ed Luttrell suspended
the Charter of the California State
23 Grange and cancelled its annual meeting.
24 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I 104:23-105:11, Ex. 7.
25
44. On October 19, 2012, National Grange
26 Master Ed Luttrell demanded that
subordinate California granges pay dues
27 directly to the National Grange while the
Freeman Mathis
& Gary, LLP California State Grange charter was in
28
Attorneys at Law
suspension in order to remain in good
-10-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 standing.
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. F, Plaintiff’s
4 Response to Request for Admission, Set
One, No. 74.
5
45. The National Grange began a lawsuit
6 against the “California State Grange” and
its President, Bob McFarland, in October
7
2012.
8 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C, Huber
Depo. I, 206:1-207:12.
9
46. One of the purposes of the lawsuit
10 brought by the National Grange was to
regain control over the 1946 Corporation.
11
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
12 Depo. I, 318:10-319:2.
13 47. In the 2012 lawsuit against the California
State Grange, the National Grange
14 attempted to obtain a declaration that
subordinate grange property under
15 control of the unchartered “California
State Grange” run by Mr. McFarland
16 would revert to the chartered California
State Grange.
17 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C, Huber
18 Depo. I, 214:6-215:24.
48. The 2012 annual meeting of the
19 California Sate Grange was cancelled by
the National Grange following the
20 suspension of its charter.
21 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo., 109:5-23, Ex. 9.
22
49. Mr. McFarland continued as President of
23 the 1946 Corporation, and continued to
use the name “California State Grange”
24 following the revocation of the state
grange charter on April 5, 2013.
25 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, 138:25-139:24, Booth Depo.
26 Ex. 20 at p. 2.
27 Fayard Decl., Ex. C, Huber Depo. I,
Freeman Mathis 69:20-71:20.
& Gary, LLP
28
Attorneys at Law

-11-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 50. At the October 2013 annual meeting of
the California State Grange run by Mr.
4 McFarland, the delegates voted
unanimously to amend its bylaws to
5 acknowledge that the California State
Grange is no longer affiliated with the
6 National Grange.
7 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo., Ex. 15.
8 Fayard Decl., Ex. C, Huber Depo. I,
162:3-19.
9
51. On November 8, 2013, the officers of the
10 California State Grange sent
correspondence to the Executive
11 Committee of the National Grange
acknowledging that they are no longer
12 affiliated with the National Grange.
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
13 Depo. Ex. 15.
14 Fayard Decl., Ex. C, Huber Depo. I,
162:3-19.
15 52. The 2013 bylaws of California State
Grange run by Mr. McFarland
16 acknowledges that the California State
Grange is independent of any national or
17 other affiliation.
18 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, Ex. 16, at p.3, Preamble.
19
53. UCG continued to be associated with the
20 unchartered California State Grange, run
by Mr. McFarland following the
21 revocation of the state grange charter,
and voted at the 2013 annual meeting to
22 amend the bylaws stating that the
California State Grange was no longer
23 affiliated with the National Grange.
Evidence: Allison Decl., ¶¶ 15-17.
24
54. UCG continued to pay dues to the
25 California State Grange run by Mr.
McFarland following the revocation of
26 the state grange charter.
Evidence: Allison Decl., ¶¶ 14-16.
27
Freeman Mathis
& Gary, LLP
55. UCG continued to attend the annual
28
Attorneys at Law
meetings of the California State Grange
-12-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 run by Mr. McFarland following the
revocation of the state grange charter.
4 Evidence: Allison Decl., ¶¶ 14-16.
5 56. CG Inc./CCG obtained its tax-exempt
status under the group tax exemption
6 granted to the 1946 Corporation.
Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 9, 16.
7
57. CG Inc./CCG later enjoyed its tax-
8 exempt status under a group exemption
granted to the unchartered California
9 State Grange corporation.
Evidence: Allison Decl. ¶ 9, 16.
10
58. In 2016, the National Grange prevailed
11 in trademark litigation against Mr.
McFarland and the “California State
12 Grange” to prevent the organization from
using the grange name.
13 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber
14 Depo. I 88:2-89:2.
59. Mr. McFarland, as President, changed
15 the name of the 1946 Corporation to
California Guild in June 2016 following
16 the trademark litigation by the National
Grange, and advised local organizations
17 to do the same.
18 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, 149:3-150:2; Ex. 3, pp 5-6.
19
Fayard Decl., Ex. C, Huber Depo. I,
20 69:20-71:20.
Fayard Decl., Ex. D, Saxton Depo., 39:3-
21 40:13.
22 Allison Decl., ¶ 21.
60. In February 2014 delegates from 26
23 granges in good standing with the
National Grange met to reorganize the
24 state grange for California.
25 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, 140:20-141:19, Booth Depo.,
26 Exs. 17, 41.
27 61. In 2014, to be in good standing and
Freeman Mathis eligible to reorganize under the state
& Gary, LLP
28
Attorneys at Law grange in California, a subordinate
grange must have paid dues to the
-13-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 National Grange during the charter
suspension and revocation.
4 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, 309:12-310:10, Booth Depo. Ex.
5 41.
6 62. UCG had not paid dues to the National
Grange during the period of charter
7 revocation and therefore was not in good
standing in 2014.
8 Evidence: Allison Decl., ¶ 14.
9 63. UCG was not eligible to reorganize
under the California State Grange in
10 2014 because it had not paid dues to the
Grange organization since September
11 2012.
12 Evidence: Allison Decl., ¶ 14.
64. If a subordinate grange is more than two
13 quarters behind in the payment of dues,
that is grounds for immediate revocation
14 of the charter.
15 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I 128:7-13
16
Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber Depo. I,
17 110:21-111:6.
65. On July 12, 2014, eligible granges
18 completed the process of reorganizing
the state grange in California, became
19 members, and installed new officers.
20 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, Ex. 17.
21
66. Between September 2012 and July 2014
22 there was no state grange acting under
the authority of a charter from the
23 National Grange.
Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber
24 Depo. I, 169:8-12.
25 67. The National Grange created a new
corporation for the reorganized
26 California State Grange.
27 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Freeman Mathis Depo. I, 146:6-22, Ex. 4.
& Gary, LLP
28
Attorneys at Law

-14-
DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSJ/MSA
1 MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
2 EVIDENCE:
3 68. The new corporation called “The Grange
of the State of California’s Order of
4 Patrons of Husbandry, Chartered” with
entity number C3649252, was created
5 for the reorganized state grange in
California and is known as the “2014
6 Corporation”.
7 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, 33:17–34:15;36:18- 24, Ex. 4.
8 69. The “specific purpose” of the 2014
Corporation “is to serve as the sole State
9 Grange for the State of California
authorized and chartered by the National
10 Grange.”
11 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth
Depo. I, Ex. 4 at p. 1 (c).
12
70. The 2014 Corporation was created
13 during the reorganization of the state
grange in California because Mr.
14 McFarland was still conducting business
through the 1946 Corporation.
15 Evidence: Fayard Decl., Ex. C. Huber
Depo. I, 71:21-72:9; 81:18-82:11;
16 117:13-118:14; 122:1-17.
17 Fayard Decl., Ex. B, Booth Depo. I,
34:6-15; 149:3-150:2.
18
71. The 2014 Corporation is to conduct the
19 business of the “California State Grange”
until the Grange is able to regain control
20 over the 1946 Corporation.
Evidence

Case Info

Judge

Stephen E. Benson Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 05, 2021

Case Filing Date

January 16, 2020

County

Parties

California State Grange, a California Nonprofit Corporation Plaintiff
California State Grange, a California Nonprofit Corporation Plaintiff
Chico Community Guilds, an Entity of Unknown Form Defendant
Chico Community Guilds, an Entity of Unknown Form Defendant
Cutbirth, Robert Andrew Attorney for the Defendant
Cutbirth, Robert Andrew Attorney for the Defendant
Martin Jensen Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Joceline Herman Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Thomas Riordan Attorney
Jenifer Wallis Attorney
Mark Ellis Attorneys for Defendants
Jeffrey Skinner Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gregory Fayard Attorneys for Defendants
Adam Khan Attorneys for Defendants
Kevin Ortiz Attorneys for Defendants
Peter Scott Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Mark Serlin Attorney
Charles McCurdy Attorney
Stephen Caine Attorney
Alexander Rich Attorney
William Janicki Attorney
Ronald Britt Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: California State Grange, a California Nonprofit Corporation vs Chico Community Guilds, an Entity of Unknown Form

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties